Rail is more productive when transporting large commodities such as grain, coal, and other bulky items. They are also more rffective when hauling containers, trailers, and chemicals. Which would you rather have, a convoy of 200 trucks traveling to the same place at the same time or 1 double stack train? I would go for the double stack train!
Trucks vs Trains: making truckers pay more won't work
· By: David H. Bradley
· Date: 2004-01-24
Comments (16) Join conversation
The trucking industry has come under unfair attack recently for use of Ontario's highway system. The contention is that if more freight moved by rail, congestion on Greater Toronto Area(GTA) highways would be reduced. In addition to being based on a distorted view of the facts, this notion ignores the real reason why most Ontario businesses prefer trucking to rail.
Rail is cheaper than truck, but it cannot provide the level of service demanded by today's just-in-time inventory systems, synchronous manufacturing processes and express retail delivery.
The trucking industry's commitment to service and its ability to meet shipper demands is what has made it number one.
Does it make sense, then, to hamstring the mode of freight transport that best meets the needs of the economy to try and prop up another mode, whose service applies to a specific market segment (long haul, less time-sensitive shipment of bulk commodities) but cannot provide the service needed by value-added, goods-producing industries?
The arguments employed by the advocates of modal shift rely on some popular myths espoused by the railway industry, notably by the president of the Railway Association in the Star on Jan. 9. He said that:
- Toronto's congestion problems are the result of truck traffic.
- Government provides highways free.
- All road users, but especially trucks, do not pay their fair share of highway costs and should be more heavily taxed.
Trucks are not a chief cause of congestion and gridlock in the GTA. There are a lot more cars than trucks on the road, especially at peak traffic volumes.
Weather and accidents also play a significant role in gridlock. A recent report conducted for Transport Canada found that even if rail were being used at full capacity to haul freight, it would remove less that 0.5 per cent of traffic volume in passenger car equivalents on Highway 401 in the GTA.
Investment in additional highway capacity is seen as a bad thing. Road users are called "free riders" and it is argued that the costs of highways are "often free" to motorists and truckers alike. (Are other government services funded by the taxpayer such as health care and education also free)? User pay is the way to go - unless you are talking about transit riders.
But Ontario motorists are paying significantly more in road-related fees than is being invested in highways.
Combined, the provincial and federal governments bring in about $6 billion a year in revenues from fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees. The Provincial Highway Management Program budget is about $1 billion. The federal government has no highway fund.
The revenues from Ontario fuel taxes and registration fees generated from truckers alone pay for at least 85 per cent of the provincial highway program costs. We think that is more than a fair share.
Road users are not only paying for the highways, they are also making a major contribution to all other government-provided services. Trucks pay about three times the rate of tax on their diesel fuel compared to rail diesel.
If modal shift occurs, will the railways make up the shortfall in government revenues that is certain to occur? Groups like the railway association claim to be champions for more investment in commuter rail and public transit, but are they prepared to review the significant rental and maintenance fees the railways charge services like GO Transit for use of their rail lines? No, they want the road user to pay the shot.
They want motorists to pay more tolls and more for parking, gasoline and automobiles.
Other arguments - e.g., trucks do most of the damage to highways; the Europeans have found a way to shift freight from truck to rail; and more rail means less air pollution, are also inconsistent with the evidence.
Our freeze-thaw cycles are the chief cause of pavement damage. Environmental laws in both Canada and the United States mandate that by the fall of 2006, the smog-causing emissions from heavy truck diesel fuel and new heavy truck engines will be virtually eliminated. (Railways are exempt from such laws in Canada).
Despite taxes, weight restrictions and other punitive measures imposed on trucks by some European countries, the growth of trucking is still outpacing rail.
The reason, as cited by the OECD, for example, is the same as it is here - superior performance on just-in-time delivery.
David Bradley is president of the Ontario Trucking Association 
Comments
Ashon, on Friday, 04. August 2006 at 10:41 PM
Kenneth, on Friday, 04. August 2006 at 10:47 PM
I agree, if 200 trucks were traveling like that they would beat the hell out of the highways! It is bad enough with those trucks on the road now. I would rather be stuck at a railroad crossing than sharing the road with 200 big trucks going 65 mph!
Andrew Addair, on Wednesday, 16. August 2006 at 02:03 PM
Trucks would be able to carry these large loads more efficiantly than trains, and make better time. Trucks fuel the economy.
Dan, on Thursday, 15. February 2007 at 07:15 PM
Are you kidding?! Trains are MUCH more Efficient than trucks. Trucks have to spend a lot of energy turning their rubber wheels, constantly going up steep grades, and starting and stopping frequently. Trains steel wheels on steel rails are much easier to push. A combination of trains and tuck using containers can be used to optimize the benefits of each mode of transportation
Kris McKinnon, on Sunday, 22. April 2007 at 05:55 PM
Do we sacrifice just in time delivery for more Oxides of Nitrogen, Volatile organic compounds, Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide outputs in the air? Can we really put a price on our delicate atmosphere just so a truck full of Nike shoes get to footlocker on time? I guess it deppends on where you place your values but this author needs to do some more research.
Mr. Bojangles, on Sunday, 26. August 2007 at 03:21 PM
trucks are dangerous and should be removed from all of North Americas highways. Truck drivers are so stupid they don't know the difference between a clean efficient train and some stupid polluting trucks. Down with stupid illiterate truck drivers!
Dennis, on Friday, 31. August 2007 at 07:25 PM
I seat here and read all the responses ,but one got my eye is Mr. Bojangles comment ,one thing i have to say only and if you can get it thats fine ,try to imagine those that YOU call stupid do HAVE a family and NEEDS ,now put yourself driving with 90 kph and some "SKILL DRIVER" cuts in front of a TRUCK like he owns the road with his 3650 lbs car ,when the truck alone is almost 100000 lbs .....
Thats what i thought, so please think before you do/say something about truck drivers .......
Bad apples are everywhere ........
And to say something about truck vs trains ,they all have the right to be there ,different loads different ways different approach ....
And finally i quote 1) "Trucks fuel the economy."
2)Combined, the provincial and federal governments bring in about $6 billion a year in revenues from fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees.
What else can i say, thank you for your time ......
Ken, on Friday, 31. August 2007 at 10:18 PM
Hey Dennis, there's not much point in responding to Bojangles in any rational way. (His) comment reads like he's an immature kid who doesn't really have much intelligent to say about anything.
Many car drivers just don't get it with trucks. They dont' know how to relate to them and they don't understand how important trucks are in getting stuff to their homes and their local stores.
However, the railroads need to smarten up, otherwise congestion will make truckers lives unbearable
DOC-63, on Thursday, 11. October 2007 at 07:57 PM
I am 45 years old and am just now thinking of becoming a professional long haul driver after loosing my job of 20 years. The Argument about trains vs. trucks is benign. It's politicizing an environmental issue and putting the economic stability of consumerism at peril. Delivering consumer sensitive goods (perishable/non-perishable) in a timely manner needs transport trucking and trains. The issue about the traffic congestion would be better addressed by the Provincial Government. Colored permits for domestic vehicles that travel into large metropolitan ares could become mandatory. It would generate revenue from those who CHOOSE to bring their vehicle into the City; Green for Mondays; Yellow for Tuesdays, etc., and an optional WEEKEND permit. The nay-sayers of such a proposal should examine the reasons why they wouldn't participate and why they might lobby against it.
It's like having cameras everywhere ...we're getting use to it, and only those who are breaking the law or behaving in a socially unacceptable way have the most to complain about.
James, on Monday, 19. November 2007 at 12:38 AM
I live in northern Ontario on the highway 11 corridor and I find theres way too many trucks on the roads... I hate sharing the road with them, in the winter especially... It's not just the bad weather I hate, it's those god damn trucks that won't slow down!!! I love trains and I want to see way more trains and see a lot less trucks on the roads... They are ruining our highways!!! I'd rather have them take their time to ship by rail than have highway trucks deliver faster.... I hope the government takes actions against trucks on our highways.... They should make the speed limits 10km/h less for the trucks on the highway... for example, make it 80km/h for trucks in a 90 zone!!! Trucks are the main danger on the highways, especially those who speed!!!
Jeff Lanthripp, on Monday, 03. March 2008 at 06:07 PM
I guess Mr. Bojangles doesn't like food, clothes, houses, or pretty much anything else - he wants to live outdoors, cold, naked and hungry. Or maybe he wants to build a railroad up to the back of every store in the country.
As for ruining the highways, hey - we pay for them (fuel taxes, operating authority fees, etc. etc.)
BTW, the engines in trucks are MUCH cleaner than trains. Trains are exempt from virtually all the emissions controls mandated on trucks, including the use of Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel. Trucks get about 250-300 tonne-miles per gallon of diesel. Trains get about 400 - but they put out about 40 times as much particulate matter, 20 times as much NOx, etc. per gallon burned because they use the "dirty" fuel.
Johnny, on Wednesday, 05. March 2008 at 10:06 AM
Jeff, all other facts I read tell me trucks get about 120tonne miles per gallon , where did you get your numbers from
Bryan, on Wednesday, 05. March 2008 at 11:28 PM
Ask any highway engineer how much damage freight trucks cause to roads in proportion to passenger cars - every engineer in the transportation business knows that a lone 6-axle semi-trailer rig causes as much damage to a stretch of rigid pavement as 440,000 passenger cars. There is simply no way around this fact.
Freeze-thaw is indeed a significant source of pavement damage,but freeze-thaw is the fault of no one, and considering the ridiculous disparity between passenger car damage and freight truck damage, equitable-minded people really have no choice but to significantly increase taxes on freight trucks if they wish to maintain their roadways.
Freight trucks cannot be entirely replaced by rail - department stores will not and cannot set up miniature rail terminals at every location, and there are many goods which simply cannot use the rail network because of time constraints that may or may not have to do with time sensitivity of the product being transported.
Someone has to pay for the upkeep of the roads, and it only makes common sense for those who do the most damage to pay a corresponding amount for its repair. If taxes are applied fairly across the board, trucking companies have little reason to fear increased costs of operation. Trucks are the only freight transportation mode available in many places, and companies with responsive supply chains and/or small order lot sizes won't be able to use rail because that kind of business is simply not what rail does.
Increasing pavement thickness by a few inches exponentially increases the amount of damage it can take. Using more tires on trucks also decreases the amount of damage they cause per run. A few simple measures will suffice to at least partially alleviate the problem of pavement damage.
In summary, trucks are a necessary part of the economy and cannot be replaced rail, and even a several hundred percent increase in shipping costs may not affect the trucking industry very strongly. Nevertheless the highways must be repaired by those damage it most, and it is painfully obvious that freight trucks cause so much more damage to the roads so as to push passenger car contributions into the realm of irrelevence.
Greg, on Tuesday, 25. March 2008 at 06:52 PM
Like Bryan said trucks will never be replaced (completely) by rail. However Trains should completely eliminate long haul trucking. A hybrid system where trains transport goods to hubs and trucks take them to their destinations will be the best.
Andrew, on Wednesday, 30. April 2008 at 10:49 PM
A train can move one ton of freight 206 miles on one gallon of fuel. A truck can move one ton of fright only 59 miles on one gallon of fuel. The trucking industry has been using the same argument since their birth but the truth is there is no comparison on fuel consumption, pollution, efficiency, and speed. And to also cry foul about how railroads are not and will not be further regulated on pollution standards is another false argument. Refer to the above fact. Railroads are not being further regulated because they are already way ahead in pollution control.
Ken, on Saturday, 03. May 2008 at 10:55 PM
In its recent TV ad, rail company CSX says its trains can transport 1 ton for 426 miles on 1 gallon of fuel. Doubt if a truck can do that!
